Biography

Michael Moore is a Liberal Democrats Party Politican. In the 2010 General Election the people of Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk voted for Michael Moore to be their MP. The party received 22230 votes - 45.35 percent majority

Search Politician

Voting Summary

Immigration:

Voted very strongly against making the asylum system stricter by tightening the criteria for acceptance, setting tougher rules for allowable activities and making it easier for government agencies to remove asylum seekers.

Europe:

Voted moderately against holding another referendum on membership of the European Union.

NHS:

Voted strongly for GP Commissioning in the NHS (the policy that GPs should buy services such as out of hours care, ambulance services and hospital care on behalf of their patients).

Welfare:

Voted moderately for the UK state reducing spending on social security and welfare benefits, including state assistance provided via the tax system.

Increase Income Tax:

Voted moderately against increasing the top rate of income tax.

Increase VAT:

Voted moderately for increasing VAT.

Terrorism:

Voted very strongly against making the crime known as “Terrorism” different from murder and conspiracy to murder, having have its own special category for which the normal rights not to be detained without charge or trial can be summarily suspended at the whim of the Government.

Climate change:

Voted moderately for making the laws which enforce Climate Change policy as strong as possible.

Search Constituency

Recent Appearances

The single market of the United Kingdom is vital to the fish processors and agricultural producers of

Berwickshire, the coat hanger manufacturers of Jedburgh and the world-class knitwear manufacturers of Hawick, among others, so does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the major achievements of the Smith commission was to bring more powers to Scotland, but preserve that single market?

It is a pleasure to follow Nia Griffith. I welcome the fact that the Opposition have brought forward this debate, if not the particular motion. This is an important subject, and I agree with them that it is regrettable that there is not more opportunity in Government time to debate these important matters. However, I really regret the tone in which the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) chose to introduce the debate. She disregarded the consensus that has existed on this subject over a number of years, and I am really surprised that she did so; it was like a hackneyed replay of the playbook that we saw before the last general election.

When the draft Bill to enshrine the spending of 0.7% of our GDP on the United Nations target for official development assistance was introduced, it was clear that it was intended to create a dividing line between the then Labour Government and the Conservative Opposition. I give credit to my right hon. Friend Andrew Mitchell for the rather nifty piece of footwork that he employed in committing the Opposition to supporting it. It was easy for me, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, to make that commitment. The Bill therefore had cross-party support.

In the past, I have credited the Labour Government with the fact that they started the debate and set the track for us to follow in getting to the 0.7% target. However, there was no hint today of Labour acknowledging that leadership and welcoming everyone else into the fold; it was Labour, Labour, Labour and nothing else. I think that people outside this place will judge us harshly if this hard-won consensus cannot be seen to hold. They would have gained no impression at all from the hon. Member for Wakefield that we had even reached the 0.7% target under the coalition, on the back of the work that the previous Labour Government did.

I set all that out on Second Reading of my private Member’s Bill and on every subsequent occasion. It was my great good fortune to come second in the ballot and

to introduce that piece of legislation. Until today, I also regarded it as my great good fortune to have such clear cross-party support, rather than the point scoring that we have now seen. If Labour had wanted to claim leadership on this, it had the chance in government to bring such legislation forward, but it did not actually do it, so Labour Members should not criticise the coalition for not having done it in Government time.

On the point about Labour MPs delivering on this, I must say that they were here in numbers during the passage of my Bill. I am grateful to every last one of them who was here in the Chamber and who voted on all its different stages. Six people voted against it on Second Reading. Seven voted against the money resolution and five voted against it on Third Reading. Any one of the parties on this side delivered more votes than was required. Labour Members were critical of closure motions, but please let us recognise that the passage of the Bill in this place was a joint enterprise.

I apologise for surprising the right hon. Gentleman with my tone. I do not want to say that the Opposition started it, but there really is a different kind of tone to the debate today. I thank him for his contribution to the Bill, and for his own track record as a Minister and in piloting the earlier legislation through. He is right to draw attention to the nay-sayers, who I must point out opposed the Bill from both sides of the Chamber—

Numerology

Has spoken in 9 debates in the last year, ranking 559th out of 650 MPs.

Has received answers to 3 written questions in the last year, below average amongst MPs.

People have made 13 annotations on this MP’s speeches, above average amongst MPs.

Has voted in parliament in 67.96% of votes, ranking 441th out of 650 MPs.

Has rebelled against their party in 0.48% debates in the last year, ranking 434th out of 642 MPs.

Data (images, statistics and information used to compile this page) from various sources including
“TheyWorkForYou”
(operated by mySociety a project of UK Citizens Online Democracy), Getty, the Open Parliament Licence, Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license version 2.5.